003-6958392-9362824

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 078 (2021)   09.03.2021   Judgments of 9 March 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 12 judgments1:   five Chamber judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for three other Chamber judgments in the cases of:   Hassine v. Romania (application no. 36328/13), Bilgen v. Turkey (no. 1571/07), and Eminağaoğlu   v. Turkey (no. 76521/12);   four Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can   be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Arewa v. Lithuania (application no. 16031/18)   The applicant, Olusegun Bamise Arewa, is a Nigerian national who was born in 1989 and lives in   Vilnius.   The case concerned the length of criminal proceedings instigated against Mr Arewa for conducting   illegal financial operations and their impact on his family rights.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within reasonable time) of the European   Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained that the criminal charges against him had   not been determined within a reasonable time.   No violation of Article 6 § 1   Just Satisfaction   Mocanu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 8141/07)*   The applicants, Victor Mocanu, Pavel Răducanu and Semion Mititelu, are Moldavan nationals who   were born in 1951, 1935 and 1961 respectively. They lived in Sângera (Republic of Moldova) at the   material time. Mr Mocanu and Mr Răducanu died in 2008, and in 2013 their children – Valentin   Mocanu et Vera Braghiş, respectively – voiced their wish to continue the proceedings.   The case concerned the State takeover of farmland belonging to the applicants with a view to   building a stretch of railway line through the Sângera municipality.   Relying, in particular, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European   Convention, the applicants alleged that the procedure laid down in the Law on expropriation had not   been observed.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber   judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a   panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and   deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the   Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution - _blank   By judgment of 26 June 2018, the Court ruled that the applicants’ farmland had been expropriated   unlawfully and that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Today’s judgment concerned the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction). The   Court had taken note of the agreement reached between the Government and the daughter of the   second applicant on the one hand, and the third applicant on the other. Accordingly, the Court   decided to strike the case out of its list in so far as the second and the third applicants were   concerned. It furthermore held that the respondent government was to pay 3,000 euros (EUR) for   non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,540 for costs and expenses to the first applicant’s son.   Revision   Volchkova and Mironov v. Russia (nos. 45668/05 and 2292/06)*   This case concerned the expropriation of property located in the town of Lyubertsy near Moscow,   aimed at enabling a private investor to proceed with a building project.   The applicants, Tatyana Volchkova (application no. 45668/05) and Boris Mironov (application   no. 2292/06), who owned a house and a piece of land in Lyubertsy, complained that they had been   deprived of their property for the sole benefit of a private investment project devoid of any social   purpose, aimed at building a multi-story apartment block. They further submitted that they had   been awarded a derisory sum in compensation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the   Convention (protection of property).   By judgment of 28 March 2017 the Court ruled that the expropriation of the applicants’ property in   Lyubertsy had been carried out in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, reserving the issue of their   claims in respect of pecuniary damage.   By judgment of 15 October 2019, ruling on the claims in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court   decided to award Ms Volchkova 16,700 United States dollars (USD) and Mr Mironov USD 42,000.   On 15 January 2020 the Government informed the Court that Mr Mironov had died on 16 February   2019. They therefore requested that this applicant’s case be struck off the list by revising the   judgment of 15 October 2019, pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.   On 20 February 2020 counsel for Mr Mironov asked the Court to revise that same judgment. She   pointed out that Mr Mironov’s widow and son wished to continue the application in order to receive   payment of the sum of USD 42,000 awarded by the Court. In support of her request she enclosed the   relevant inheritance certificates.   In its judgment today the Court decided to revise its judgment of 15 October 2019 and held that   the respondent Government was to pay USD 42,000 to Boris Mironov’s heirs for pecuniary   damage.   Zinin v. Russia (no. 54339/09)   The applicant, Stanislav Nikolayevich Zinin, is a Russian national who was born in 1987 and lives in   Ulyanovsk (Russia).   The case concerned the issue of whether the applicant’s right to a fair trial had been breached when   he had been convicted of copyright infringement and distributing counterfeit software as a result of   alleged police entrapment, and when neither the applicant nor his lawyer had been present during   the hearing of the applicant’s case in the cassation court.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicant complained that the   police had incited him to commit the crimes of copyright infringement and distribution of   counterfeit software, thus violating his right to a fair trial. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to   a fair trial/right to legal assistance) Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal   assistance of own choosing), the applicant further alleged that his trial had not been fair because   neither he nor his lawyer had been informed of the date of the cassation hearing, thus preventing   him from attending.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)   Just satisfaction: EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage.   Benitez Moriana and Iñigo Fernandez v. Spain (nos. 36537/15 and 36539/15)   The applicants, Sergio Benitez Moriana and Ivo Aragón Iñigo Fernandez, are Spanish nationals who   were born in 1977 and 1976 and live in Jaca (Spain) and Madrid respectively.   The case concerned the alleged violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression because   of their criminal conviction for the publication of an open letter in a local newspaper complaining of   the conduct of a judge in proceedings affecting them.   They rely on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.   Violation of Article 10   Just satisfaction: EUR 6,779 for pecuniary damage, EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and   EUR 3,341 for costs and expenses to each applicant.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   During the current public-health crisis, journalists can continue to contact the Press Unit via   [email protected].   Tracey Turner-Tretz   Denis Lambert   Inci Ertekin   Neil Connolly   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3